News worthy?

| | Comments (0)

The John Cambell comic strip perfectly summarizes the recent amounts of frenzied coverage given to Michael Jackson's death. Definitely there is a need to cover such issues like celebrity deaths because people are interested in hearing about them, but shouldn't there be cut off point where they leave the non-essential stuff to the people at TMZ. And the same information kept being discussed--daily: Toxicology reports, toxicology reports, toxicology reports.  That is all you would hear and nothing progressive about them, just that there were still no updates on the results yet. I don't know. I just change the channel when I hear anything about him, now. Derek Tickle said it right in his entry, "If it wasn't for famous people, then the news would be even shorter in length."

I'm still at odds over what exactly qualifies newsworthiness. News is pulled in different currents; the audience doesn't always want to hear about the important topics. People have become finely tuned-in to their voyeuristic natures; any form of media, be it news or whatever, caters to this desire to see into others' lives.  The news broadcasters are only aiming at giving the audience what it wants, right?

Return to classmates thoughts

Leave a comment



November 2010

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
  1 2 [3] 4 5 6
7 [8] 9 10 11 [12] 13
14 15 16 [17] 18 [19] 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 [29] 30        

Recent Comments

Powered by Movable Type Pro